The Samsung Galaxy S24
HappyBallz's profile

Teacher

 • 

1 Message

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 10:20 PM

Locked bootloader on Galaxy S4...DO NOT BUY IT!

I been with ATT for over 10 years and every year I see more and more anticonsumer behavior from you... I was planning on purchasing new Galaxy S4 and now I come to find out that it and the other high-end phone, HTC One, both have locked bootloaders!

 

Why are you crippling devices ATT? This is a slap in the face to any loyal customer and high-tech driven people. These phones were meant to be used with maximum cusomization in mind, Sprint and T-Mobile both released theirs totally unmolested.

 

Why are you driving your customers away?

Guru

 • 

309 Messages

11 years ago


@Zombiehunter wrote:

 

So, I see the contract has a pymt program for the discounted phone price as well as providing a usable data access program. I see the ETF as recouping the remaining monies owed on the phone. Is it a penalty for not completing the contract? If it is, then AT&T is stating a falsehood in a legally binding contract and should be held accountable. And if it is a known issue, then why hasn't AT&T been held to answer for printing that false statement?

Thanks for the lively conversation. Just know that I'm on this side of the idea and not going to cross over. 

OK, I'm done.


 



If this was the case, shouldn't the monthly service charge decrease after "the monies owed on the phone" have been paid off?

 

With regards to phone ownership, perhaps an AT&T employee can chime in and clarify whether it's AT&T or the subscriber who owns subsidized phones?

Guru

 • 

309 Messages

11 years ago


@21stNow wrote:

@kgbkny wrote:

As a test of this theory, walk into an AT&T store with an unlocked phone and try to sign up for a postpaid account without purchasing a subsidized phone. You will still be liable for a $325 ETF. As such, the ETF is a penalty for early termination, plain and simple. A few months ago, prior to the current reorganization, T-Mobile had a postpaid plan that didn't include a subsidized device. This plan still had a 2-year contract requirement, complete with an ETF.

With regards to vehicle ownership, here in NYS the title is issued to the owner shortly after purchasing the financed vehicle. Once the loan has been paid off, the bank sends the owner a lien release form.

 


There is a lot of confusion in this thread.  The bolded part above isn't true.  I walked into AT&T and started a new line of service on my existing family plan with a device that I already owned.  I canceled the line less than a year later.  There was never a contract on that line and no ETF owed for the service cancellation. 


You are absolutely correct. A quick search yielded an article in AT&T's FAQ section, stating that it's possible to get contract-free postpaid service if you bring your own device.

 

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB417921&cv=820#fbid=Bnzq0r_M7qa

Professor

 • 

3.7K Messages

11 years ago

If that were the case (lowering pymts) then why doesn't the same occur with any other loan, to use your example earlier of a car loan? Cuz the price of the item is factured into the length of the contract, like when buying a car.

And like I said, I really don't care if I'm right or wrong, this is the logical way I see AT&T's contract compliance.

Professor

 • 

2.7K Messages

11 years ago


@Zombiehunter wrote:
If that were the case (lowering pymts) then why doesn't the same occur with any other loan, to use your example earlier of a car loan? Cuz the price of the item is factured into the length of the contract, like when buying a car.

And like I said, I really don't care if I'm right or wrong, this is the logical way I see AT&T's contract compliance.

I think that the concept of lowering payments is in reference to after the contract is over, assuming a new subsidized device isn't acquired at that time.  Car payments are "lowered" once the contract is over because they cease to exist. 

 

The argument for the service price remaining the same is based on the thought that the service price is just that.  The cost of the voice plans does not include an amount for the device that is automatically built into it.  I don't believe that argument, but it is there.

Guru

 • 

309 Messages

11 years ago


@Zombiehunter wrote:
If that were the case (lowering pymts) then why doesn't the same occur with any other loan, to use your example earlier of a car loan? Cuz the price of the item is factured into the length of the contract, like when buying a car.

And like I said, I really don't care if I'm right or wrong, this is the logical way I see AT&T's contract compliance.

You've completely missed the point. Once you've paid off a car loan, there are NO MORE PAYMENTS! Using your example of contract compliance, why is it that monthly wireless payments don't decrease after the contract's completion? You imply that we don't own the phone until the contract has been completed - then why do the monthly plan payments remain the same after 24 months?

Guru

 • 

309 Messages

11 years ago


@21stNow wrote:

@Zombiehunter wrote:
If that were the case (lowering pymts) then why doesn't the same occur with any other loan, to use your example earlier of a car loan? Cuz the price of the item is factured into the length of the contract, like when buying a car.

And like I said, I really don't care if I'm right or wrong, this is the logical way I see AT&T's contract compliance.

I think that the concept of lowering payments is in reference to after the contract is over, assuming a new subsidized device isn't acquired at that time.  Car payments are "lowered" once the contract is over because they cease to exist. 

 

The argument for the service price remaining the same is based on the thought that the service price is just that.  The cost of the voice plans does not include an amount for the device that is automatically built into it.  I don't believe that argument, but it is there.


Bingo. A perfect example of this are the now-defunct T-Mobile contract service plans, where the full purchase price of a device was financed over 20 months, after which the monthly bill would drop by approximately $20. Their new Simple Choice plans operate on a similar principle, albeit without a monthly contract.

Professor

 • 

3.7K Messages

11 years ago

Oh well, I have always renewed the contract so I have no proof that the pymts do not go down.

Do you remember what I said in my last post?
I may be right or I may be wrong, *I don't care, * that's the way it appears to me.

Professor

 • 

2.7K Messages

11 years ago

I have had service from AT&T after the contract expires.  Trust me, the cost does not decrease.

Professor

 • 

1.9K Messages

11 years ago


@kgbkny wrote:

@21stNow wrote:

@kgbkny wrote:

As a test of this theory, walk into an AT&T store with an unlocked phone and try to sign up for a postpaid account without purchasing a subsidized phone. You will still be liable for a $325 ETF. As such, the ETF is a penalty for early termination, plain and simple. A few months ago, prior to the current reorganization, T-Mobile had a postpaid plan that didn't include a subsidized device. This plan still had a 2-year contract requirement, complete with an ETF.

With regards to vehicle ownership, here in NYS the title is issued to the owner shortly after purchasing the financed vehicle. Once the loan has been paid off, the bank sends the owner a lien release form.

 


There is a lot of confusion in this thread.  The bolded part above isn't true.  I walked into AT&T and started a new line of service on my existing family plan with a device that I already owned.  I canceled the line less than a year later.  There was never a contract on that line and no ETF owed for the service cancellation. 


You are absolutely correct. A quick search yielded an article in AT&T's FAQ section, stating that it's possible to get contract-free postpaid service if you bring your own device.

 

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB417921&cv=820#fbid=Bnzq0r_M7qa


Which takes us back to what I said, the ETF covers the cost of the subsidy for the phone that was not honored. Here in Texas, when a vehicle was financed, we used to get a alternate title that looked alot like the original title but was a different color. This title was to show that you purchased the vehicle in your name but had yet not paid it of, meaning it is not fully owned yet. The financing company still has part ownership. When it was paid off, they sent you the original title. Now, they don't send anything but the original title when the vehicle is paid off, but I believe the alternate titles are still available by request.

Professor

 • 

1.9K Messages

11 years ago


@Closingracer wrote:

@sitnsidewayz wrote:

@Closingracer wrote:
I don't disagree with it being insulting but while is a large community is still a small minority. I think I read about a year or 2 ago that Apple iPhone that are sold 79% are still sold on AT&T which means a lot more iPhone are on the network. Also there is plenty of people who have android phones who don't need a custom ROM and thus AT&T really won't do anything unless you guys make a ruckus publicly through a news outlet or some way proving if all you guys leave will hurt their bottomline

You guys? Us guys that go to xda and unlock the bootloader, root, mod, and install  custom roms don't need to go nowhere as long as AT&T allows us to still use our phone on the network. The majority of complaints are from users that got sucked in by the subsidization and then figured out that they don't fully own the phone. I don't think it would be off base to state that a majority of users that have these smartphones wouldn't have them if they had to pay full price for them. I don't gripe, I know where to go and what to do. If you don't want the carrier to control your phone, don't pay their price. Unfortunately, the temptation of the reduced price is the hook. True, for every user that frowns upon a locked bootloader, there are many more that don't care. But of those many that don't care, a majority of those don't even know how to fully use their phone and/or don't know the full capabilities of it. Then there are those capabilities that are disabled by the carrier that users like us guys seek to work around. The OP got it right by stating "DO NOT BUY", however AT&T knows that smartphones are the drug and reduced prices will net them a ton of junkies. Smartphone data plans are the money maker right now. And the new upgrade policy is no different, it puts a smartphones in user's hands today, even when they don't have the money or want to pay in full today. And since the phone is not paid in full, users are not likely to leave anytime soon, as if they are under contract.

really the OP is just *** and needs to get over it.... If he wants a unlocked bootloade he knows where to go and thus he should go there

 

[Edited to comply with Guidelines]


Unfortunately, alot of people are technically challenged, so unlocking bootloaders, rooting, flashing, modding, etc....tends to go over their head. I see many of these guys over at xda already. Not saying the op is one of those, but it is not for everyone. Too many already want to root for the simple reason of uninstalling preinstalled apps that they do not use (bloat as it is referred to). Something like this is something that the carriers should not be preventing. And if a user really owns his device, why is he not allowed to uninstall what he does not want on it? And I'm not talking about system apps. I'm talking about something as simple as a demo game. I can understand some of the justification behind it, but I feel the carriers take it to far. I doubt forcing users to keep AT&T Navigator on their phone is going to convince them to subscribe.

Not finding what you're looking for?
New to AT&T Community?
New to the AT&T Community? Start by visiting the Community How-To.
New to the AT&T Community?
Visit the Community How-To.